Comments

The brilliants of making a machine that does polynomial functions is fascinating! I can’t begin to imagine how one goes about making something like that. Even when I see it it’s hard to believe. I admittedly paused just to get a closer
look at that human brain.

How do you "do" a polynomial function? Do you evaluate it's zeros, or evaluate it numerically at a point, or what?

﻿The whole point of .NET is choosing the language of your choice. I use C++ as little as possible, but I don't want them taking away C#, or VB.NET. I'm sure the C++ guys feel the same.

C# and C++ should like together, like man(aged) and wife (I'll get lynched by politically-correct people if I said native wife).

There are things which C# can do which C++ struggles with. C# puts code to product quickly and well, it has an awesome IDE and it's easy to reason about automatically.

There are things which C++ can do which C# struggles with. C++ uses vast, vast libraries the like of which C# has never seen, and has the rich full-bodied glory that only a language committee and nearly two decades of industry trial-and-error has given. C++
can interface easilly with the kernel, and works well on non-Microsoft OSes. If your codebase is primarilly C++ you also can't
afford to move to C#.

Sure you can make bad code in C++ with buffer overruns, but you can make nasty mistakes in C# as well, but not understanding the deletion order of the GC, or by playing with pointers through PInvoke in a way that you shouldn't.

Point is that C++ and C# shouldn't be opposites. F# showed us that Haskell-like languages and C++-like languages can co-exist and can complement each other, rather than fighting in silly "my language is better than yours" wars. Hopefully someday we shall have
a G#++, which combines the power, flexibility and interoperability of C++ with the language-independence, managed-ness and nice IDE-ness of C#.

﻿I Yearn for the day when Visual Studio will not have C++ in it anymore.

The Visual Studio on this machine doesn't have C++ on it because I decided not to install it when I installed VS 2008. (My VS2005 has C++ on it).

SecretSoftware wrote:

﻿OSes will be using managed code in the future.

Way to show how little you know about OSes.

SecretSoftware wrote:

﻿Games too.

And games.

SecretSoftware wrote:

﻿So lets just slowly get rid of C++ and focus on C#.

C++ will stop being used when it is no longer useful. There is no single group that can force people to stop using C++, and it still remains the language of choice for
most big applications. I might venture to point out that Vista, MS Office, Visual Studio and IE/Firefox are all written in C/C++, so it's a long time off a "big switch" to .NET languages.

SecretSoftware wrote:

﻿C# is the future, and C++ brings back bad memories , of sleepless nights.

Anyone for year of the C# desktop?

SecretSoftware wrote:

﻿Customers who still use C++ should upgrade to C#. And that is that.

Anyone who still uses C++ or C# should upgrade to Lisp/Perl and that is that. What gives you the right to overrule what someone else has deemed a good language for your product when you clearly know less about their product than you do.

SecretSoftware wrote:

﻿Any one who likes C++ should just stay with VS 6. or previous builds of vs.

And while they're at it, Steve Ballmer should state that Microsoft Office is now going to support documents written only in capitals because it gets the point across, and that IE8 will drop support for CSS and images because they "arn't useful". Seriously,
stop being stupid.

JohnnyAwesome wrote:﻿They wrote J Script in the time-span of several weekends? And he wrote that in Lisp and then rolled a C translator from scratch?

There is a reason why I could not work at Redmond and that just about summarizes it.

It's not that difficult, especially if you've done it before, like most people would have in any decent computer science graduate program.

Bearing in mind that Computer Science graduate programs didn't exist fifteen years ago, and were a one-year extention of a maths or engineering course.

And now I feel old.

Anyway, GC is one of the problems that I've worked on quite a bit, and they really are facinating. Dussud's right tho. A bad GC makes everything horrible, and a good GC can hide a multitude of sins in a badly written application.

Congrads to Dussud on the CLR GC, it's certainly one of the most impressive out there and is a significant reason as to why managed code doesn't experience the loss of power that most people expected it to.

It's probably not an overstatement to say that his work is contributory to the MSR Singularity's surprisingly good CPU performance review earlier this year, despite expectations that it would be catastrophically bad. Managed code is great because we have guys
like Patrick on board.